Are you micromanaging your team?
It's happened - you've caught yourself deleting and rewriting part of your colleague’s report three times. Not because it was wrong, per se, it just wasn't how you would’ve written it. The content was fine, the tone was professional, and it would have achieved exactly what you needed.
But there you were, at 7:30pm, completely rewriting something your team member had already done perfectly well.
Then, the realisation: you've become exactly the kind of manager you always complained about.
Are you (gasp!) a micromanager?
Everyone throws the term "micromanagement" around like confetti these days.
Set clear expectations? "That's micromanaging!"
Give specific feedback on quality standards? "Stop micromanaging!"
Ask for regular updates on a critical project? "You're such a micromanager!"
This overuse of the label has created a strange paralysis among managers. We've become so terrified of being accused of micromanaging that some of us have swung completely the other way - avoiding giving feedback, setting vague expectations, and basically leaving our teams to figure everything out alone. That's not good management either!
The confusion comes from mixing up what micromanagement actually is, with just being an engaged manager. Understanding the difference isn't just nitpicking, it's the key to finding that sweet spot where teams feel supported, but not suffocated.
What does micromanagement really look like?
Real micromanagement has some pretty clear warning signs, and most of them centre around one core issue: controlling the process when you should be focusing on the outcome.
The obvious red flags:
Redoing or nitpicking work that's already perfectly fine
Dictating exactly HOW things get done when the result is what actually matters
Requiring approval for everything - every email, every decision, every tiny choice
Monitoring work in real-time rather than checking outcomes
Being prescriptive about processes when there's no business case for doing it that specific way
This creates what we call "learned incompetence." When you constantly redo or heavily direct everything teams produce, they stop thinking for themselves. They start producing work at the level it gets handed to them, not the level it needs to be at. Then you have to review and redo everything, which makes you feel justified in micromanaging even more.
It's a vicious cycle!
Warning signs you should pay attention to
Some micromanaging behaviours are harder to recognise because they feel productive or thorough when you're doing them. But they're actually signs of anxiety and control issues masquerading as good management.
Control behaviours that feel "normal":
Sending emails at 6am and getting frustrated when there's no reply by 9:15am
Spending significant chunks of your day hunting through Asana, Trello, or Monday.com looking for missed deadlines or incomplete tasks
Actively seeking out "urgent problems" that need immediate attention (that are minor and not time-sensitive)
Booking formal meetings to discuss every small issue that could be resolved with a quick message or call
Finding yourself checking team calendars to see what everyone's doing
Asking for updates on things you asked about yesterday (when nothing could have changed)
The underlying issue here isn't really about work standards - it's about anxiety and a compulsive need to feel in control. These behaviours create that suffocating atmosphere where people feel constantly watched, even when that wasn't the intention.
Occasionally indulging in these behaviours when there’s a genuine crisis or urgent deadline makes sense, but if you find yourself doing these things on a regular basis, it’s time to take a step back and ask yourself: Is this way of working, working well for me?
Signs you’re micromanaging
Sometimes the clearest indicator that you're micromanaging, is how your team start responding. When people feel overmanaged, they change how they work around you, and these changes are rarely positive.
When people feel micromanaged, they typically respond in one of two ways: becoming overly dependent or disengaging entirely.
When people start adapting their behaviour:
They stop sharing ideas or discussing their thinking, knowing you'll critique every detail (disengaged)
People provide excessive detail in updates to "prove" they're working (dependent)
Your team avoids bringing up problems or challenges in front of you (disengaged)
People wait for your approval on routine tasks (dependent)
They over-copy you on emails and over-document decisions (dependent)
Creative problem-solving drops as people default to "what will [manager] want me to do?" (disengaged)
Both response styles can create feelings of inadequacy in the team, and create unhappy employees.
Sometimes it’s simply a matter of changing the way you communicate!
← Check out Paul’s advice on how to align intentions in conversation.
When it’s NOT micromanagement
This is where it gets important to draw some clear lines, because not every form of hands-on management is problematic.
Setting standards and expectations isn't micromanaging.
Saying "I want the end product to look like THIS" and defining what good looks like is fundamental management. The key difference is focusing on the outcome rather than controlling every step of the process. If you can imagine elves coming in overnight and doing the work to standard, what you'd see in the morning is what standards should define - the results, not the method.
Performance management when someone isn't meeting expectations isn't micromanaging either.
If someone's consistently underperforming, it's completely reasonable to be more involved, ask for more frequent updates, and yes, even be more prescriptive about how they approach tasks. You're not micromanaging - you're managing to the level that's needed.
Managing new or struggling employees more closely isn't micromanaging.
Someone who's new to the role or struggling with specific tasks legitimately needs more hands-on support. The difference is that this increased involvement should be temporary and purposeful, with a clear path towards more autonomy as they improve.
The key is being dynamic - able to move up and down the management spectrum based on what each person needs at any given time. A high performer getting a task they're unfamiliar with might need more guidance temporarily. A usually strong performer going through personal difficulties might need more check-ins for a while. That's not micromanaging - that's responsive management.
What causes micromanagement?
Most people don't set out to become micromanagers. It usually develops for understandable, if misguided, reasons.
The irony is that most micromanaging comes from caring about quality and wanting good results. The problem is that the methods actually work against those goals.
Questions to ask yourself
If you're wondering whether your management style has tipped over into micromanaging territory, here are some honest questions to ask:
Am I changing things that are already working fine?
Do I find myself looking for problems rather than celebrating what's going well?
When I give feedback, am I focusing on real issues or just stylistic preferences?
Would I be happy if elves did this work overnight and it met my standards?
Am I solving problems my team should be solving themselves?
Am I spending more time checking and adjusting their work than they spent doing it?
Are people asking permission for things they used to decide independently?
The answers don't have to be perfect, but they'll give you a sense of whether you're managing outcomes or trying to control every detail of the process.
What should you do next?
If you’re struggling to strike the right balance, or just want to get better at managing your team in general, there’s help on the horizon! And by that we mean in our next blog. It’s all about striking the right balance with a dynamic management approach! Read it here.
